Conservation Commission / IWWA Minutes 12/01/2015
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS
AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY MINUTES
DECEMBER 1, 2015
REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
Margery Winters, Chairperson, opened the Regular Meeting of the Conservation Commission at 7:30 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room at the Town Offices. Other members and alternates in attendance were Charles Haldeman, Darren Cunningham, Jim Morrison, Donna Beinstein, and Donald Rieger. Also present were Michael Glidden, Assistant Town Planner; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.
APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Chairperson Winters seated Commissioner Beinstein for Patrick Spaulding and Commissioner Haldeman for the vacancy.
ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS
None.
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION
1. Application #15-47 of Christian Alford, Alford Associates, Inc., Applicant; Norma D. Duschaneck, Owner; for the regulated activities associated with a 3-lot re-subdivision on the property located at 25 Holcomb Street (Assessor's Map D05, Block 301, Lot 007). Zone R-80. (received 11/17/2015; decision must be rendered by 12/24/2015)
Application #15-47 was read into the record.
Christian Alford, Professional Engineer, described the layout of the Owner’s property, including about 19 acres of wetlands in the total 27.5 acres. The Engineer proposed creation of 3 lots with the existing home on 24 ½ acres and two new 2-acre lots; the existing wetlands pretty much cut the lot in half. A report from George Logan, Professional Soil Scientist was submitted; during construction the location of silt fence was shown on the map; roof water from the homes would be directed to underground plastic infiltration chambers open at the bottom; testing revealed very sandy, fast-percolating soil on the site; and the water table with sand down to it was said to be at the same level as the wetlands.
The Engineer noted Town Staff’s request for a recommendation from this Commission to the Planning Commission regarding open space; 20% or 5 ½ acres would go to the Town in the same proportion or 1.7 acres of URA and 3.8 acres of wetlands with an area that size delineated in the property adjacent to the Massaco State Forest. The Engineer indicated the woods are wet and did not envision any area clearing; the distance of the wetlands from the street is about 250 feet from the pavement edge; the houses would primarily be outside the URA with only a corner of one house touching the URA and construction uphill of the filter fence. The Engineer confirmed both septic systems would be in the URA, which is currently a pesticide-free hay field and part of a family farm for over 80 years. Regarding the difference in elevation between the proposed buildings and wetland, the wetland elevation is at 310 feet and the houses about 20 feet above that and walkout basements 10 feet above in a fairly evenly sloped area; the houses would comply with required setbacks for R-80, including 50-feet for the front and rear yards and 40 feet for the side yard.
Town Staff noted from an agricultural perspective there should be consideration of how many times the existing field is mowed/maintained versus a house yard mowed every week with potential application of fertilizer and pesticides. Town Staff noted one reason this Application is before the Commission relates to the grade change and area of disturbance closest to the edge of the mapped wetland soils on Lot #2 with the silt fence within 65 feet of Wetlands Flag A-18 from the northeastern corner of Holcomb Street; and Commission recommendations for open space are a separate action. Staff recommendations included that the locations of the homes built in the future and their sub-surface sewer systems may require additional wetland approvals from this Commission, with the conversation from this Application considered at that time regarding proposed measures, e.g. roof infiltrator systems. The Engineer indicated percolation tests were included in the submitted materials confirming fast infiltration; the roof infiltrator systems would consist of a downspout and plastic 7-foot chamber perforated on the sides at about 16-24 inches deep, depending on the grade, and an open bottom buried in the sandy soil in coarse stones; the grade requires the septic systems to be in the URA and downhill from the houses. Town Staff noted recommended Special Conditions provide for future property owners to return to this Commission if home locations differ and that infiltration systems are placed in the right location for proper storm water infiltration, as certified by a licensed engineer.
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion that this is a regulated activity since it involves clearing, filling and grading within the Upland Review Area.
Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion that it is not a significant activity due to the distance from the wetlands being on the border of the Upland Review Area, as well as the procedures in place described by the Applicant.
Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to grant the permit subject to the Special Conditions and Standard Conditions contained in Staff’s 11/15/2015 memorandum, with the last sentence of Special Condition #6 amended to read: “The Engineer must certify the system was installed in appropriate location, depth, and sized properly in order to handle storm water run-off associated with proposed homes.”
Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Regarding Sedimentation and Erosion Control, Town Staff indicated it ties into the regulatory activity approval; if it was independent with no wetlands permit required, the Applicant would come before the Commission pursuant to Chapter 128 for an E&S Plan.
Regarding the open space recommendation which will be decided by the Planning Commission, Town Staff noted there are 3 options for a residential subdivision, including: 20% open space, fee in lieu of, or conservation easement. The Engineer indicated the Owner preferred the easement, which would primarily be used by the property owners and not other people and would protect the habitat. The Engineer described the easement of about 300 feet including the wetland tip and URA area and about 400 feet down the line to comprise the 5 ½ acres or 20% of the 27 ½ acres in the same overall proportion of wetlands/URA, including all wooded swamp areas. The Commissioners discussed whether it should be given in fee to the Town since it is all wooded; and open space could be given to the State at a later date. The Owner indicated there is an existing Great Pond walking trail in the area and they wish to keep the area part of their family farm, which would not be developed.
Jamie Rabbit, Director of Planning and Community Development, clarified that the Planning Commission, based on this Commission’s recommendation, has the discretion to choose whether the Applicant does a fee simple dedication, accepts an easement, or requires a fee in lieu of open space based on the property’s sum appraised value. It has been his experience in other areas of the State regarding properties abutting State property, that the State does not like to take small pieces and attach them to large parcels because it is hard to determine when people are in/not in the State forest. He also noted if an easement is protected by other regulations in an undevelopable area, it may not be in the best interest of the community to receive the easement, which may lead to a fee in lieu of open space to benefit both the community and property residents; dedication of open space is not intended to benefit only property residents. Based on this information, Mr. Rabbit recommended fee in lieu of open space. The Commissioners discussed the need to monitor the easement to assure maintenance of the State forest wooded buffer and it is hard to be confident an easement will fulfill that role. Mr. Rabbit responded there is easement language that would allow the Town to enter the property to enforce the easement with the ability to recoup associated costs and penalties can be imposed on the landowner for violations, including for the easement. Mr. Rabbit added there is also the option of a combination of fee in lieu of open space at a reduced amount in concert with a protected easement, including a no cut/no disturb zone. Town Staff noted this Commission can also recommend the Planning Commission request an added buffer under their subdivision regulations if fee in lieu of is deemed appropriate for this Application, in order to move any disturbance further away from the State forest property line, including a portion of the mowed field.
The Owner believed there would never be a problem with no change to the already preserved wetlands and expressed their goal to act responsibly. Mr. Rabbit clarified any property easement or buffer would not take property rights away from the owner nor give them to the public; only Town Staff can enter the property for enforcement; the property owner can use the use the property in the manner they have described, but the Commission has additional concerns as described in Town Staff’s 11/15/2015 memo. Mr. Rabbit explained the fee would be based on the property appraised value up to 10%, divided by the number of subdivision lots, and paid at the time each lot is sold and transferred with a caveat in the land record to assure the fees are paid at closing; or there is also an option to pay on Day 1. Regarding whether the fee could be larger than the value of the 2 smaller lots, that has not been Mr. Rabbit’s experience with similar subdivisions; and Commissions have the discretion to charge a much lesser amount or nothing. Given the Owner’s desire to maintain their elderly Mother in the home, the Commissioners noted a small fee could make that more feasible for this large lot; however, the Planning Commission has the discretion to decide. The Commissioners noted that the Planning Commission has preferred in recent times to prefer an easement or money, rather than fee simple, which would be more in keeping with the long-time Owner’s family goals given significant expenses for their Mother’s care. The Engineer noted the Owner’s preference for a conservation easement dedicating open space and ensuring to the Town in perpetuity that no trees would be cut, and the area would not be developed in any way; or second, if there is no agreement on land value, there is also an option for a $2500 lot fee. The Commissioners discussed the desirability of a well-crafted conservation easement, including the 2 large wooded areas at the property rear; or potential dedication of open space.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion that the Conservation Commission recommend to the Planning Commission that it consider favorably accepting a Conservation Easement in the rear of the property in the area indicated by the Applicant, to exclude the hay field at the very north, but to include the very wooded and wetland areas in the south.
Commissioner Haldeman seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
RECEIPT OF NEW APPLICATIONS
Town Staff noted receipt of an Application for a very large addition for Nancy Onken at 35 Lucy Way.
CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. Discussion of Correspondence regarding 85-6 of Town Code regarding complex applications
Commissioner Rieger reviewed the proposed letter which resulted from the recent CACIWC meeting where it was learned from legal experts that if a wetlands and water course expert is in the room, they are the only credentialed expert and cannot be ignored. Therefore, there are times when the Commission should retain an expert independent voice to evaluate an Application, at the Applicant’s expense. Currently, the Town Code only allows an expert at the Applicant’s expense for a large, complex project involving 100,000 sq. ft. of new building or parking for 200 cars. However, there are many other cases where an expert could be valuable as strongly recommended by the CACIWC experts. Mr. Rieger provided a draft letter to the First Selectman explaining the problem and requesting she bring the letter to the BOS which proposes revising the language defining a project before the Conservation Commission to be one deemed to be complex, and deleting the size of building and number of parking spaces language. Mr. Rieger noted the Code provides for BOS case-by-case approval.
Ideally the need for an expert could be identified by Town Staff when an Application is received and the Commission would make that determination; the Applicant would pay for the Commission’s expert, as well as their own expert, which is the legal framework in most other towns. Mr. Rabbit indicated other State municipalities provide in their ordinances that the Applicant pay for retaining the Commission’s outside expert; this is important in assisting the Commission with unbiased evaluation of what the Applicant and their expert propose. The Commission determines the type of expert needed, bids are taken, and the cost is taken to the BOS. Mr. Rabbit recommended that the BOS may want to modify the suggested language retaining the intent for the Conservation Commission to hire expert consultants at the Applicant’s expense, regardless of the project size. The Commissioners discussed potentially copying other BOS members.
VIII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the November 17, 2015 regular meeting
On Line 19, the name “Pat Kottas” is corrected to “Patrick Spaulding”.
On Line 219, the spelling of the name “Reiger” is corrected to “Rieger”.
Chairperson Winters accepted the November 17, 2015 minutes, as amended.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
Commissioner Beinstein seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.